SHRI HIMANSHU DILIP JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(1)(5), MUMBAI

Both the appeals are based on the almost identical facts except variation in amounts and having involved identical issues and therefore for the sake of brevity the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and issues involved in as a lead case and result of the same would be mutatis mutandis applicable to both the appeals under consideration.

In the instant case, the Assessee is not pressing his appeals on merits vis-à-vis sustaining the addition on account of bogus purchases on the basis of the information received from GST Department. The Ld. Counsel Shri Mahaveer Jain (Ld. Advocate) has submitted that the Assessee is challenging the quantum of disallowance sustained by the Ld. Commissioner @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases as made by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 28.03.2016. The Ld. Counsel drew attention of this Bench to order dated 22.05.2024 in and submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the identical facts and circumstances as involved in this case, has also considered the identical addition/disallowance made @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases as GP and restricted the addition/disallowance/GP rate to 6% instead of 12.5%, over and above the GP rate already disclosed by the Assessee. The Ld. D.R. did not refute the claim of the Assessee. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and decision of the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case referred to above, this Court is inclined to restrict the addition from 12.5% to 6%, over and above to the GP already disclosed, as reasonable, sufficient and justified. Accordingly, the GP rate is restricted to 6% over and above to the GP already disclosed. Resultantly the appeal under consideration i.e. is accordingly party allowed.